Is war a necessity or something that should be avoided at all cost?

War can be an unpleasant experience but sometimes it seems like it is tool which can be used to bring about peace. In the same way it can be a tool used for tyranny and greed. Is it a good thing for people to desire eternal unquestionable peace or is war a means of bringing about that peace?

Jul 24 2011:
For those who have accepted war as part of the inevitable path of human existence, you are a welcome site, my friend. Every war needs casualties and it's good to know that you are willing to do your part. In fact, if we could get all those who are trying to change the world with love and generosity in a big circle here, we can get this over nice and quick.

I say this, not because I support war and not because it represents how I feel, but rather it represents the logical notion that while war can exist with some portion of our species hoping that it doesn't, peace cannot exist with even the smallest portion of our species wishing that it did. Once we learned that war could happen, it became a part of our existence and has persisted since. When you are child and someone takes your toy, the first time you punch the aggressor and get your toy back is the last time that you will sit idly back and let your toys be taken from you. Learn the lesson that war has benefits only once in the history of humanity and forever forward, it will at least be an option.

And the thing is that the group of crying children without toys have little respect from those who successfully defended their own toys and they have little impact on the folks who took their toys.

While I admire your message and I relate whole-heartedly to the notion that even in winning the war, you have lost, I feel compelled to hold my toys tight and say, with all the love I can muster: "I'm glad it's you, not me". I have accepted war, like it or not, and while I will be glad to share my toys with just about anyone, have no doubt that they are mine and that I am willing to go to war over them.

Jul 28 2011:
Thank you for your comment and sorry for responding late Jason.

(1). WHEN I SAY NO WAR it means that, the child should not take away something thru WAR either. Just ask for that (debate). I hope it is clear now.

2. “With respect, I totally do not agree, this “an option” that you say, opens the door for that child to take away the toy with WAR & and the affected child will use this human killing “option” in an even worse way. . Further, it effects so many other children in the house, parents, neigbooors, .......... . NOW THE OTHER CHILDREN/MEMBERS USE YOUR OPTION BECAUSE THEY WERE INNOCENT., IT KEEPS GOING ................................. .

3. you said “I feel compelled to hold my toys tight and say, with all the love I can muster: "I'm glad it's you, not me".

Jul 20 2011:
There have been a number of statements that war is part of human nature. There is no clear evidence of this. There is no evidence of war or inequality in the first 90% of human existence on this planet. The human brain is plastic, it adapts to experience and conditions. Epigenetics indicates that genes are not automatic influences but are activated by current conditions. How we evolve is up to us. We have developed habits and systems of war. We can change these habits when we fully realize the true costs and allow our natural capacity for empathy to emerge. If compassion was cultivated in the same way math and writing skills are, war would end.

Jul 20 2011:
Bob, where is the evidence to prove otherwise? Also, how does the evidence hold against population growth and resource scarceness?

In Guns, Germs and Steel Jared Diamond puts forth the case that humanity made a big development leap 50,000 years as tools and art started appearing in Eurasia, this after 4 million years of wondering what to do with our own species. Once the big leap occurred the expansion of humans started all over the place. Apparently wherever we appeared, we consumed resources and caused mass extinctions of mammals. Long story short, the more we grew in population the more resources we consumed and the more complex our societies became. This dynamic invariably led to conflict and those with more technological advantages prevailed. This makes a compelling case for humanity evolving by adapting to experience and conditions and war takes a central role, but so does technology and even biology.

So, what's my point? My point is that we are what we are today because of this long line of intertwined events that happen to include many things, war among one of them. Is war part of our nature? I don't know, but I do know that it is a part of our existence, we don't need to embrace it, but we do need to understand that it is part of our world. Finally, no one really has a good understanding of the origin of our species and our nature, they all have good theories... We can demonstrate incredible compassion and incredible viciousness depending on our external and internal influences.

Jul 21 2011:
Luis, The best summary of evidence for a lack of aggression and inequality is "The Fall" by Steve Taylor. There is evidence of art, cities, tools, and large civilizations well before evidence of human to human aggression, which only appeared in the last 5 to 10% of human existence.

My point is that we are not driven or programmed by a genetic propensity toward violence. It is a choice and when we fully realize the effects of our actions on others, we can choose to act in other ways.

Cooking over an open fire was part of our existence for many centuries but now we cook indoors. We can choose our own destiny. Believing our nature is to be violent and self-centered takes away the awareness of that choice and responsibility and serves those who strive to gain short term benefit from violent, self-centered behavior.

You say we are not driven by a genetic propensity toward violence, but let me ask, are we genetically driven by a propensity to develop technology? organize in groups? demonstrate compassion? create art? how about homosexuality? What about egoism? What is it that drives our behavior that is genetic? Moreover, how do you separate these from each others? I think you are over generalizing and over simplifying this problem to preach compassion, which, in itself, is a great idea, just not very practical.

Jul 21 2011:
Luis wrote: "You say we are not driven by a genetic propensity toward violence, but let me ask, are we genetically driven by a propensity to develop technology?"

I appreciate your question and feedback, Luis. I believe the whole concept of genetically driven behavior is way over-exaggerated and, as far as I can tell, has little basis in science. My point is the negative - that we do not have a genetic drive toward violence.

Luis wrote "I think you are over generalizing and over simplifying this problem to preach compassion, which, in itself, is a great idea, just not very practical."

We have a clear disagreement on this point. Compassion is a much more practical way to solve problems than violence. It actually works to bring about lasting solutions in practice. Compassion may be dismissed by those who profit by greed and aggression, but there is clear evidence that it is part of our nature (See the talk and book by Jeremy Rifkin on The Empathic Civilization)

Compassion is being able to see things from another person's point of view and to understand what and how they feel about it. In my experience it is a critical component in solving problems. How is it not practical?

Jul 24 2011:
First, I have to say that I have really enjoyed both your posts and Luis Martin's posts on this topic. And while I think that you both bring up some great points, the thing that seems to ring true to me, separate from both of your points is that once we learned war and were able to see war as having a benefit to society in any way, from any perspective, it becomes part of the discussion for conflict resolution moving forward. We wouldn't have war if there was absolutely no benefit to war.

I admire the notion that unlike any other species, we have the ability to experience "compassion" and that ability is the only possible thing that can keep us from using one of the most effective tools we have ever had for conflict resolution: war. It is our compassion, however, that drives a great deal of the wars on this planet.

As an American, I can hide behind my compassionate nature to claim that our war in Iraq was/is reasonable because I feel terrible for the Iraqi people and their lack of democracy before our invasion. It may be completely misguided and wrongfully applied, but the truth is that "compassion" combined with a limited perspective can not only be a righteous justification for war, but it can also be the very foundation of it.

While it is novel to think that our our compassion can provide lasting beneficial resolutions to conflicts, I challenge you to consider the notion that while you may believe compassion is the solution to war, it is more likely that compassion is as likely to cause war/conflict as it is to prevent it.

And with regards to genetic tendency towards war whether in Darwinian survival scenarios or socio-biological contexts, the logic remains that so long as war could be a possible solution to benefit even one side of a conflict, to refuse to consider it would be to deny our very nature. Thanks again for the great discussion.

Jul 25 2011:
Jason wrote: ""compassion" combined with a limited perspective can not only be a righteous justification for war."

You brought up an important distinction, Jason. My understanding of compassion is that it expands our perspective. Compassion with a limited perspective is a contradiction. When our perspective is limited, often by stress, hurry, anger, frustration etc., our capacity for empathy and reflective thought (two important components of compassion) are restricted. We may be resentful or seek revenge (sometimes mistakenly understood as Justice), but this is not true compassion which requires broad understanding and a filter of non-attachment. Anyone with true compassion would realize how devastating that war has been for the people.

Compassion cannot be a cause of an offensive war. Compassion could lead one to intervene in a war that is already taking place, as the U.S. could have done in Rowanda. There is a difference between responding to violence with defensive action and using violence as a means to an end.

Jul 25 2011:
Jason wrote "the logic remains that so long as war could be a possible solution to benefit even one side of a conflict, to refuse to consider it would be to deny our very nature."

I maintain that using war to benefit our side denies our very nature. We need to close our heart and lose touch with some of our humanity to kill another person. I have worked with a number of people who have killed in self-defense and it is usually the most traumatic part of the experience.

Jul 23 2011:
I'd like to support Bob's point about violence and human nature. Much of the primate work that supports that idea that we are intrinsically violent comes from work with chimps which are not actually our best or nearest relatives. If we look at bonobo socieites we find that they mirror humanity much more closely especially in social relationships and for them (who branched off from us most recently in our ancient past) war is unknown. They embody the 1960's slogan- make love not war.

Jul 24 2011:
However, place the Bonobo's in an environment that was not nearly as rich and plentiful of natural resources and evaluate their tendency towards conflict resolution. The notion that Bonobo's use sex to satisfy their aggressive nature or sex to satisfy conflict is novel and interesting, but it is largely the result of their abundance of natural resources and their lack of exposure to violence and war. Introduce a more aggressive conflict-oriented chimp to the Bonobos and evaluate how long it takes for war to replace "sex" for conflict resolution. In one corner we have Joe "lips" Bonobo, the kissing chimp and this corner we have John "teeth" Chimp. In the middle we have a luscious banana. Both chimps have gone three days without food. Who will get the banana? Lets watch and find out.

Jul 25 2011:
OK, this conversation seems to be becoming polarized based on two perspectives. One perspective is that killing people is wrong and that wars happen most of the time for reasons that are not as extreme or not as noble as they are represented to be. The other perspective appears to be that war is a reality of human nature and that it is unavoidable because people in many societies seem to be able to impose their violent will others and must be stopped. If I have encapsulated the two positions- NOW WHAT? How do we have a constructive conversation with each other? Isn't it worth acknowledging that many times wars are not fought for the reasons that the public is told? Isn't is worth acknowledging that there are people who are williing to fight for the oppressed? Now how do people of good will work to ensure that war is minimized and truly fought to put the Hitlers and Idi Amins of the world out of business?

Who are the ones usually suffered most during wars? The innocents, like children & women.
The world has fought two major wars, is there peace now?
In fact, I must say it even though some may not agree with it, that wars breeds more wars
as all wars came from two causes:-:
1. GREED for more power, money, territories etc &
2. HATRED.
Wars can NEVER be a means of bringing about peace.
Wars are manifestations of the minds.
Our minds created wars and so we can use this tool of the mind too to create peace.
War begets more wars; peace begets more peace.
Only with inner peace in our minds and hearts can we bring about long term peace in the world.
Inner peace brings outer peace to the world. Peace always to all. v

Jul 19 2011:
So if attacked by a foe you would expect a nation to drop their weapons and avoid a war? Human nature is unfortunately tuned in to war and not inner peace, and it is pretty much an illusion to think that by our own selves we as humans are going to one day snap out of it, get together, hold hands and sing 'I love you, you love me'. By our own power we will never be like that. It is better to face the present reality and prepare your nation for war, better fight for what is right then be passive and live in fear and have evil men rule over you.

Jul 19 2011:
I cannot understand why people had to resort to killing same species (human beings) to justify their cause, to settle a problem/dispute or to proof a point. If you're attacked, you've to ask why you're attacked? Why you've enemies who want to attack you?

If countries have mutual understanding, goodwill, bilateral relationships, non-oppression, ethical fair international policies & respect for one another, there would be no enemy to attack. Each country helps each other to grow. I don't believe a country can live independantly without depending on other countries. We have to live inter-dependantly to survive & live peacefully without having to resort to wars to solve problems, distribution or deficiencies. That seems impossible but nothing is impossible if people truly want a world without wars. Unfortunately, people are so tuned to wars to solve problems and another problem is, we forget easily. :(

Jul 24 2011:
It is so much more complex than you are considering. I mean take the U.S. for example. We will gladly come to a peaceful agreement with another country that does what we want. No conflict, right? That means: treat your women like equals (or at least make it look like you do) and don't do drugs (except those drugs that big manufacturer's produce and charge lots of money for) and believe in God (though we'll pretend to look the other way if you wanna cal Him something else) and....

No conflict, right? Come on. At what point does another culture's belief so offend your culture's sensibility that the two cannot exists simultaneously in an equally beneficial relationship? The truth is that there will always be conflict between nations and so long as war is a possible solution, it will exist.

I, for one, will never believe that it is reasonable or acceptable to stone a woman to death for having been the victim of a rape. To me, that is unacceptable in any way and the mere thought of it makes my blood boil. How can I possibly ever have a mutual understanding with a culture that promotes such a behavior? How can you expect me to have a bilateral relationship with someone I find morally corrupt ?

Your entire list of implied moralities suggest that there exists a defined morality that is agreed upon by all living humans to define: Ethical, Fair, Respect, Understanding, Goodwill. Without such a unified declaration, how can any society be expected to align themselves with such a notion. The truth is that it cannot exist in such a simple context.

So then it becomes a matter of give and take. I'll let you continue to rape and oppress innocent women, just don't do drugs and for that, we'll agree not to treat you any differently at the airport so long as you don't develop close-knit, separatist communities inside the U.S. It's unreasonable and idealistic to assume that we will all find a common ground.

Jul 19 2011:
Love is the only solution. Human nature is not tuned into anything, it is not rock solid. Human nature is learned and developed with time. Nobody says humanity will "snap" out of war in a day, no. Not in a day, maybe in a century, maybe more, maybe less, but not in a day.

Jul 19 2011:
War a necessity - NO
A tool to bring about peace - NEVER
Desiring it good ... - NO NO NEVER

Everyone knows this and yet we keep thinking about it... why? I feel there should not be any position that can be held by someone to declare war. These positions are traps. No one should be given the authority itself to declare war for it is the fear of the other country's status(the sources and tools of war it owns ) that keeps preparing our countries for wars...

"Neighboring country has got a nuclear weapon... Ok now i need to get more..." Yeah its all fear...

I thinnk that this quote agrees with the idea that negotiation should be a tool that is used before conflict ensues. I do however also agree with Flavius Vegetius Ranatus when he says "Let him who desires peace prepare for war".

Jul 25 2011:
Jimmy, there are informed statements that can be made from each side of the argument. War is an incredibly complex topic that can be argued against and in favor, no need to dare people on this.

Jul 25 2011:
I see what you mean and I'm rarely this forward about something... It's just that I don't think that anyone can maintain their pro-war viewpoint after watching all or a bunch of the Talks!
Pro-war statements or opinions are one of the few things that make me less humble when indeed the opposite is needed...

Also I'd like to add that I see a dare as something innocent, it's not an attack of any sort... I'm against attacks...

Jul 25 2011:
Thanks Jimmy. Adam's point however is to be considered and it is the essence of the 'pro-war' position.

Quick stop here: Have you considered that the people here that argue war is in fact sometimes needed are not 'pro-war', as in "Yeaaaah let's kill some people especially women and children!!!"? The arguments go more into the view of not being accomplices by inaction or by taking action to defend a perceived higher moral purpose.

Anyway, back to the point. We can all fundamentally agree that war is bad for all parties involved, we only disagree on the necessity of it. You say never, I say sometimes, and granted, someone is likely to say always. Adam makes his point by basically putting the same argument, if a group uses or is willing to use violence against yours what do you do? Do you sit idle and let them have at you or do you take action (that is violent action)?

The majority of people that argue against war seem to be oblivious to this argument and respond by citing philosophical concept or ideas but nothing that approaches reality or that it is practical.

I promise I'll watch the talks, but promise me this... read the first book on Winston Churchill's "The Second World War" and get a feel for how incredibly complex events that can cause a war unfold.

Jul 25 2011:
I've considered Adams and your views and had them myself for a very long time... I believe action is required against war but that it should be non-violent... At the most opponents should be pacified.

Jul 26 2011:
I have given thought and consideration to non-violence and came to the realization that peace has to be guaranteed and protected by any means necessary, including but not limited to violence.

"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war" John F. Kennedy

Jul 30 2011:
"Deserve" and "asking to be subjugated"
The same self justification also used for murder, rape, robbery, etc.
Outstanding Jason. The definition of evil, exploiting power simply because one can.
There is nothing logical about it, it's lack of self control.

Jul 22 2011:
War is usually imposed on poor countries, an unjust tool for superpowers. Superpowers like to impose their culture on poor countries to rob l their natural resources. If a country lacks wealth, normally is not invaded by superpowers. Beyond war is hatred and inhumanity under the label or coverage of human rights .It must be avoided unless another country dares to invade a weaker country. So defense becomes necessary, though, on the whole , war blocks improvements of invaded countries e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Peace be on all humans.

Jul 20 2011:
I am against war between countries, I don't believe there should be countries at all
we shall unite
interrelate, this will maximize the benefits to the whole world, utilize resources more efficiently, producing goods at lower prices and different vision the wold shall have

the world is though still.............. conditioning
classifying the world into regions, does not make sense, I see
check this out......... human being are able to cope, right??!!
thus, I think if people been put in a "free" world, they will react accordingly to the better, no doubt
the people will cope or imitate the good

why wars at all?
to secure resources ..........or to colonize other regions
why would there be wars at all??
it's a mismanagement of resources, I think
or conflict of interests
people created money, now they fight for it

Jul 28 2011:
War is as necessary as peace. Without the other, these concepts are incomplete. The notion of attaching morality to either is simply justification for our perspective.
But when all is said and done, war is a transition from one state of a society's being to another. And that transitional act is much faster when the opposition is no longer present (whether as exiled refugees or exterminated).

Peace, however, is a slower, more controlled, transitional chaos. It is a socially acceptable amount of internal turmoil. Because regardless of the statement that your society is at peace or at war, it is in turmoil towards maturity or dissolution.

So how committed are you to your ideals? And what is justifiable to see them to fruition? Maybe those questions will define your rationalizations towards peace or war...

Jul 27 2011:
War is not necessary but justifiable for the oppressed. If you're not oppressed you have no right to war. Often two sides have no right to war.

It is ok to kill people if that's the only way to stop them doing irrepairable damage to your long-term chances of survival as an individual or a collective. If they have forced a "you or me" situation you can force the outcome. Divisions come depending on where people set the boundary for their collective:Themselves (individual)/ Their culture/ Their race/ Their nation/ Their species/ Their phylum etc. War will happen as long as people set their boundaries too close, excluding other people from their notion of collective.

Jul 26 2011:
While I believe that peace is idealistic and that we should try our best, individually and together, to make peace, I would also like to acknowledge the fact that war can be unavoidable at times (note, i'm not saying it's necessary, just inevitable.)

When North Korea shelled South Korea's yeonpyeong island, there was an immense arousal of war setiments amongst south korans. And when the government thought best to avoid the war, people even went on protesting. Although these pro-war sentiments were highly influenced by grief and anger of the people, their primary reasons were fear-based - we needed to make an action so as to tell the north koreans that we will not tolerate these kinds of violence.

Eventually, our government only asked for a "sincere apology." But the next time north korea does something like this, war would become inevitable. And this fear-based reaction would not a "wrong" reason to go for war but a human one.

Like Tim mentioned earlier, there are wars to stop genocides and support the freedom of people. There are also wars that protect our people from being constantly abused. If we were to stay put and let it all happen, the world would end up in a massive tyranny under those who are greedy and violent.

There is no perfect way of solving this. But we cannot generalize in such broad terms. We can only try our best to find a solution that is the least bloody, hurting, and most peace-seeking.

Jul 25 2011:
By what do you mean 'at all costs' though?
If you mean 'only when it is completely necessary', then we see eye to eye.
But if you don't...
Even when a group jeopardize the freedom, future or quality of life of another group? No, I disagree. Some people/movements need to be stopped, and a group with extreme views won't back down easily, for all kinds of reasons. And while there are still evil/greedy/power hungry/intolerant/closed minded/violent people in the world, war will be necessary. And to be honest, I don't think those traits will be eradicated during in my life time.
I for one am certainly glad that the world didn't submit to Nazi rule.

If it was the former that you were saying, then I apologise for the rant. But if it was the latter... I disagree, very strongly.

Jul 22 2011:
Avoid it, duh.
Have you watched those military channel shows, not the ones on historical events but the ones that focus on technologies and euphemisms? Have you seen the faces of the people on those shows and listened to their fervor? Can you honestly sit there any say, yes, we are civilized?

Jul 22 2011:
The "military industrial complex" is alive and doing well.
Conflicts are conflicts, humans have them all the time. We have conflicts with others, with ourselves and with nature. Conflicts in my opinion is a natural human condition. So someone could say that violence is a naturally human way of solving conflicts, therefore war is a necessary evil.
War is big business. Everyone, except the victims and casualties of war, profit directly or indirectly from it.
How can we ever achieve peace, when there is a monster industry that profits from human conflict. If we as individuals are affected economically in a positive way from war... do we really want peace?

Jul 20 2011:
This is a topic I have thought about for quite some time, and I am no expert on the subject, but I wanted to share my thoughts. Feedback is more than welcome, especially if it can broaden my current view on the subject.

Everyone learns growing up about the notion of world peace. For most of us when we are young, the world is at peace because we are unable to comprehend the events taking place around us. We might be aware of some conflict taking place somewhere, but are much happier to return to playing with our Lego and Play Doh sets gifted to us. Over time we are slowly brought into the real world, and become more and more aware of the complicated struggles plaguing each and every society around the world. Some are complicated, others are horribly complicated. So how can this idea of world peace you learned years ago be brought into fruition?

Recently thinking about this issue, I forgot all about nations at war, and decided to focus solely on individuals. Arguments/conflicts happen for 2 (simplified) reasons. You either feel threatened in some way, and must act to regain that sense of security with self/property/resources/society/etc., or because you are the aggressor, and it is in your nature to conflict with others. I am imagining a utopia without a single modern weapon that can be used against another. However, with these natural aggressors in the picture, I see someone finding the biggest stick they can find to lay down their rules. Somes else finds another stick, and carves a point on the end. Another finds a way how to launch the stick great distances, and so the weapons race starts again.

How then can we seek world peace with such natural aggressors in society? This then leads into my thoughts on morality. Simple solution is when you see a problem, you get rid of it. Obviously in this case this is not a moral solution. My last thoughts are whether or not a utopia of world peace is possible, and if the means of arriving there are moral. Thoughts?

Jul 20 2011:
Colin, I would recommend two books for you to read. Steve Taylor summarizes archeological and anthropological evidence which indicates that aggression is not part of human nature in "The Fall". The Dali Lama provide a clear direction for morality in suggesting we do no harm to others and develop compassion in Ethics for a New Millenium.

I do not understand the case for natural aggression except that it is widespread and generally accepted. Aggression simply doesn't work in the long run. It only leads to more aggression as the losers plots how to restore what they believe has been taken from them. The only lasting peace comes from compassion and mutual understanding.

Jul 21 2011:
Thanks Bob! I do personally agree that humans are not naturally aggressive, infact through my experiences traveling, the strong majority of people I have met have been open and welcoming. Although my argument was towards the possibility of 100% complete world peace, my personal stance is not that we are naturally aggressive and programmed to cause conflict. I am always open to thoughts, comments, and pieces of enlightening information. The only difficult point is that I only have limited space for my thoughts on this comment block.

Jul 21 2011:
I appreciate the clarification, Colin. I do believe it is possible to eliminate war between nations. There will always be disagreements between groups and individuals. but war is an incredibly extreme measure that devastates the lives of citizens and doesn't produce lasting peace. War only serves the short term interests of a very few. The problem is that we allow or elect these few to be our leaders.

Jul 24 2011:
Bob, at what point does my compassion compel me to action? What would it take for you to be compelled to attack someone? If someone was raping your wife, would you sit idly aside and try to rationally come to a compassionate agreement with them regarding this conflict? If so, than your inner peace must be of such a great value to you that you can overcome the sense of loss, the sense of guilt, the sense of compassion that you feel for your wife.

The truth of the matter is that you would likely do whatever you could to stop the situation and if that meant kill the rapist, you would, out of compassion and instinct do just that. To do otherwise would be to deny your own human nature based on some higher morality or some ability to suspend your compassion for the good of mankind? Who benefits from this? The rapist.

Honestly, compassion is a great tool for both sides of any argument. As such, compassion, in my opinion becomes the weakest of arguments by employing a one step forward-two steps back kind of logic that, depending on your perspective, gives you great license to either act aggressively or react passively.

Jul 20 2011:
To conquer oneself is a greater victory than to conquer thousands in a battle. ~ Buddha
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. ~ Gandhi
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. ~ Gandhi
Everybody's talking about peace, but nobody does anything about it in a peaceful way. ~ John Lennon
If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace. ~ John Lennon

Jul 19 2011:
Personally, I find it hard to believe that war is the only answer to a problem of resources and disagreement in foreign policy. As a species and culture we can't move forward if money is constantly being blown because of disagreements. That being said I'm horribly idealistic and think that war has to be entirely eliminated from society. I don't have any idea how that would happen, except possibly through the continual spread of the idea of love and equality for all people.

Jul 19 2011:
In todays world, wars are started by politicians for political reasons. Sadly, that doesn't mean they are always good and proper reasons. I say this an an ex-serviceman and with the greatest respect for those who serve and die at the whim of those who rule.

War is never necessary. Neither is it something that should be avoided at all cost.

The most useful definition of war I have seen is 'war is the execution of a nation's foreign policy by other means'.

So if your country is at war, please reflect on whether you believe your nation has a sufficiently good reason to be there and make your voice heard if you don't.

War overseas kills your country's young men and women, and it kills people of all ages in the area of conflict. I submit that very very rarely will war be a less destructive option than whatever is promoted as the reason for going to war.

I do not agree at all with the statement that war is a tool of peace. Peace is what exists when there is no war.

Rule of law and diplomacy are what exist to resolve differences in peace. The United Nations exists for the same reason. There are always always alternatives to war. Only when all options are truly exhausted AND grave harm is being perpetrated does war become the lesser of 2 evils.

War is a choice. When we in our societies are mature enough we will not choose war any more. Forums like TED help this process and all of us here have the opportunity to spread the word.

Jul 19 2011:
As long as the resources and humans life are lost it cant positively impact any society.
Rather the effort, time and money spend on the same can be effectively used for the basic needs for the needy.

Jul 19 2011:
War is something that should be avoided at all cost. It is a shame that military superpowers are still using war as a mean to make money in these days. We should be becoming a unified world that no longer need to use weapons for anything other than animal hunting in the wild.

Jul 19 2011:
Unfortunately, since we are humans, we´ve been in war. It lays in our genes. On despite in 20th century is supposed that we are civilized, 50 million persons die in 2nd war world and 6 in horrible extermination camps. Today, thousands die tortured in Mexico.
Wars are completely unnecesary and must be avoid ate any cost. United Nations must assume its responsibility and obtain a commit on simple life and governance principles that all the countries must follow

Jul 30 2011:
POLITICIANS SAY, WE HAVE DECIDED TO GO INTO WAR. This is not true.

Politicians don’t go into WAR; the innocent soldiers do. That is why politician takes this decision of war as an ultimate option easily.

As long as people not suffering from it, they will continue to have WAR as an ultimate option. This is not fair.

It is easy to say WAR is an option, BUT YOU WILL AVOID IT AT ANY COST IF YOU’ RE TOLD TO TAKE PART physically, or if you are suffering from its geographic coverage.Why the family of soldiers demonstrate against WAR, because they have sent their loved ones into WAR.

Can you dare?Ask the parents of any late soldier “Can war be an ultimate option?” I am sure he/she will answer by action.

We should value the life of soldiers and civilians the same as our own and loved ones even while debating about it.With Respect

Jul 26 2011:
In having thoroughly enjoyed this thread, I realized that it is probably best to focus on the topic as presented.

IS WAR A NECESSITY?
The answer is clearly "NO". There are almost always ways to avoid war.

SHOULD WAR BE AVOIDED AT ALL COST?
Again, the answer is clearly "NO" for me. When all other avenues have been explored and the situation is such that you are faced with the choice of war or perish, than war it is, for better or worse. If faced with certain death, it is better to go out fighting with some glimmer of hope of survival than it is to just sit there and be destroyed.

IS IT A GOOD THING FOR PEOPLE TO DESIRE ETERNAL UNQUESTIONABLE PEACE?
For me the answer is "YES". I desire it and if everyone desired it enough it might even be possible to some extent. But is it practical or logical to presume that we can/ever will be able to achieve this desired state...I'm afraid that it simply is not.

IS WAR A MEANS OF BRINGING ABOUT THAT [ETERNAL UNQUESTIONABLE PEACE]?
Without a doubt, the answer is "NO". Peace is never the end product of any formula that involves war and it is not something that anyone (except for possibly those who have little to lose and billions to gain, like Dick Cheney) actually wants. And while it may be presented in such a way that we are lead to believe that it will bring about a lasting peace, that is never the case.

I believe that it is good and righteous to strive for peace on every level--starting with yourself and extending outward. And while it is admirable to strive for peace, it is equally admirable to strive for survival--which sometimes may mean that you have to go to war.

Jul 26 2011:
To me, it's simple because war does not help in any aspest since war cost money which involves economy, war cause international reltionship to be damaged. So, in definitely would believe that war is not a kind of solution. Instead, it is more problem-making situation.

Jul 26 2011:
I believe in passive ressistance first. However, tyranny exists in our world. If one of my children were to sacrifice their own life to save a nation of people from suffering I would feel grief for my lost child but pride for the genuine reasons behind that sacrifice. That said, we must hold our leaders accountable for the reasons we go to war.

Jul 26 2011:
I think it depends on how you will use it. If the goal is to protect one's country & its people from outside invasion, then that war is for defending & for peace. But if the goal is to use war for greediness, then by all means it should be avoided. But remember, there are no winners in war.

Jul 26 2011:
Peace is certainly a necessary desire. Whether or not one is able to always follow that desire is a complicated and murky question. I think the vast majority of wars in human history have been completely unnecessary, having been fought for all the wrong reasons. But what about fighting wars to stop genocides? Admittedly, WWII was not fought for this reason, and the west has very seldom committed troops to stopping one successfully. I'm wondering do the individuals holding anti-war positions agree with this idea, and just label such wars as "peacekeeping" or do they think that protesting while allowing a genocide to take place is a real solution? My personal view is that the dichotomy presented by the original speaker is a bit misleading, because I'm inclined to say "both" avoid war at almost all costs, and only when faced with a problem that has no other solutions, a problem of such magnitude that the negative consequences of the war are smaller, should one even consider initiating a war. Such a problem in my view would just about always involve genocide or warmongering, although I'm inclined to make an exception for issues like slavery or other situations where there is no genuine alternative and a massive level of human suffering that needs to be dealt with expediently. That being said, most wars are about resources, power or ego; causes that are never just.

Jul 25 2011:
War can be classified as a natural disaster, and is therefore inevitable. The tectonic forces that are built up years or sometimes centuries are released suddenly to cause catastrophic destruction of life, and property. Because we are not a homogeneous population, but have vast ideological, and ethnic differences, we are doomed. The tectonic conditions that are in place for human conflict, are differing behaviors, ideas, the need to exert their dominance over others.
The idea of racial or religious superiority is one of the dominant causes of conflict; one group will try to spread its religious message insisting that it is the only true way to think, act, and worship.
Another group may feel that they deserve a large share of the planet's resources, and exploit other groups to this end. So it seems like we don't have the currency to avoid war, but we can for now, mitigate the damage it causes.

Jul 25 2011:
What if that cost is a regime murdering it's people (Libya) or causing it's people to starvy (North Korea) should we sit back and watch or is war the only tool we have to remove the powers that are causing so much pain and suffering?

Jul 25 2011:
I disagree with these notions.
Life without disagreement would, I think, be incredibly dull. But I think there is a possibility that the human race can mature to a state where violence is unnecessary.
However, as I have said in another reply, I don't believe we will reach that maturity in my lifetime.

Jul 24 2011:
I think you answered your own question - "War can be an unpleasant experience but sometimes it seems like it is tool which can be used to bring about peace."
Surely it all depends on the specific conflict?

Jul 24 2011:
In my opinion, you can't group all wars together! Revolutionary Wars and Civil Wars are not the same as wars between an Aggressor and a Defender! War is not a necessity but from time to time becomes necessary.

Jul 24 2011:
It is interesting to consider the notion that we have a choice in the matter of war. While I refuse to go so far as to say that we are genetically programmed for/against war, I will say that we are probably the only species that has the luxury of considering whether our species should or shouldn't participate in such actions. The details of which do not necessarily affect the outcome, in my opinion. That is to say that whether war is a necessity to compensate for our inability to effectively manage population, or whether war is a side effect of greed and tyranny of a small portion of our species, the point remains that war exists and will continue to exist as part of our struggle to survive with limited resources. And even in places where the outside resources are plentiful, you'll find that war exists over other precious resources such as women. Unfortunately, when we opened the door labeled "war" in the hallway of our history, we had no idea that the door opened in only one direction. Now that we have war and have had it for so long, it is rather unfortunate that those who blindly stand by the door waiting for it open, or even for those who wildly scratch at the door hoping that we can return to a time of peace will be the ones who fall prey most easily to those who have accepted war as an inevitability. Our best option, in my opinion, is to acknowledge and embrace the fact that we have and always will have war. From that more reasonable perspective, it can be surmised that the only thing we can hope for is a way to make war have less of an impact on the quality of our lives. And depending on your perspective, it makes sense to align yourself with the party with the best, if not biggest, war skills if you want peace. Of course, I'm at luxury to make such a compassion-less statement because I live in the US where the biggest inconvenience I experience from the wars we have been in for years now is the occasional pre-empting of "South Park". Shameful I know.